A Personal Message to all of My Conservative Friends - Page 3

Brett Prince · #21 08-08-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

1. Your threat was dealt with very swiftly. It was NOT the voice of this forum.

2. MOW did NOT leave this forum due to censorship.

3. Danial is banned right now because I banned him. He knew what he was doing when he posted the thread.

Matt, I recall former days, when a former admin was accused of similar things. I thank you, though, for speaking forthrightly concerning the issues, and publicly. It DOES save much.

Folks, you can say whatever. I think the admin are doing right well.

stmatthew · #22 08-08-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Well, paint a bullseye on me and call me a target.

I get the feeling that I am the supposed poster with "newfound conservatism." Nope. I am just as moderate as I have been for quite a long time. I have stated that it is impossible for the liberal or moderate to attempt to please the conservative in every way--but we had agreements and even unwritten rules as to what both sides could come together on and agree to, and that it is wise to abide by those agreements for the sake of unity.

Please, PP, don't spin it...the libs have plenty to shoot at on me if you just leave it straight.

As for the idea that conservatives whine about the content of AFF, I think some of it is founded. Some of it is just expecting what they shouldn't.

As for the new AFF affirmation statement, I agree with it in some points, but not in others. I look to guys like Reformed Dave, who disagree with the Pentecostal viewpoint, but respect it, and are cautious about how they treat the subject. I think that this kind of respectful debate is good for AFF, as it can be for any forum. I think Wordshare is even a little too strict on some of that, UPC affiliation required or no.

I miss it when MOW is not here. He adds something to the forum. I, for one, feel I have to call him brother because he has the Holy Ghost and is baptized in Jesus Name. I vehemently desire his return to standards--which I doubt is going to ever happen--but I have to let God sort that stuff out.

PP, AFF was founded, as I understood it as the sequel to NFCF, the sequel to FCF. It is called Apostolic, and there were certain agreements in place. It was always understood that debate was allowed so long as namecalling didn't take place. Debates on the doctrine were acceptable as well, so long as we did not debate whether Jesus Name baptism was valid, whether the Holy Ghost with tongues was real, and so long as we upheld the Oneness Doctrine. Seems to me that we can do that and get along on a forum. I don't know if we can go quite that far in an organization like the UPC and get along, though. In fact, I doubt it.

Bro Brett,

You are correct in your assessment. The statement was written as generic as possible to allow for all views within a certain bound, that being Apostolic. You have pretty accurately posted those bounds above.

Nahum · #23 08-08-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Well, paint a bullseye on me and call me a target.

I get the feeling that I am the supposed poster with "newfound conservatism." Nope. I am just as moderate as I have been for quite a long time. I have stated that it is impossible for the liberal or moderate to attempt to please the conservative in every way--but we had agreements and even unwritten rules as to what both sides could come together on and agree to, and that it is wise to abide by those agreements for the sake of unity.

Please, PP, don't spin it...the libs have plenty to shoot at on me if you just leave it straight.

As for the idea that conservatives whine about the content of AFF, I think some of it is founded. Some of it is just expecting what they shouldn't.

As for the new AFF affirmation statement, I agree with it in some points, but not in others. I look to guys like Reformed Dave, who disagree with the Pentecostal viewpoint, but respect it, and are cautious about how they treat the subject. I think that this kind of respectful debate is good for AFF, as it can be for any forum. I think Wordshare is even a little too strict on some of that, UPC affiliation required or no.

I miss it when MOW is not here. He adds something to the forum. I, for one, feel I have to call him brother because he has the Holy Ghost and is baptized in Jesus Name. I vehemently desire his return to standards--which I doubt is going to ever happen--but I have to let God sort that stuff out.

PP, AFF was founded, as I understood it as the sequel to NFCF, the sequel to FCF. It is called Apostolic, and there were certain agreements in place. It was always understood that debate was allowed so long as namecalling didn't take place. Debates on the doctrine were acceptable as well, so long as we did not debate whether Jesus Name baptism was valid, whether the Holy Ghost with tongues was real, and so long as we upheld the Oneness Doctrine. Seems to me that we can do that and get along on a forum. I don't know if we can go quite that far in an organization like the UPC and get along, though. In fact, I doubt it.

Gotta go, but I will deal with this post later.

COOPER · #24 08-08-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Matt, I recall former days, when a former admin was accused of similar things. I thank you, though, for speaking forthrightly concerning the issues, and publicly. It DOES save much.

Folks, you can say whatever. I think the admin are doing right well.

Brett, I was baptized in Jesus name and filled with H.G.

Am I your brother too, just like M.O.W.?